Mayflower District Court
#in-re-swiftyderpz
This is the start of #in-re-swiftyderpz channel.
clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:11 p.m.
clerkFlow Bot2025-12-03 08:42 p.m. Permissions have been synced to
Channel Permissions Synced
Chambers of District Judge AwesomePlays
profile used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-12-03 08:43 p.m. @profile has added @mantisshrimp69 to the case channel.
Case Modified
profile 2025-12-03 08:43 p.m.
Presiding Honourable Judge @Awesome .
profilePresiding Honourable Judge @Awesome .
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-03 08:56 p.m.
he was removed from the bench by the supreme court
profile 2025-12-03 08:57 p.m.
he was suspended
mantisshrimp69 Server2025-12-03 08:57 p.m.
profilehe was suspended
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-03 08:57 p.m.
he was removed
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-03 08:57 p.m.
"There being no contestation of the complaint by the subject, the Court hereby orders the removal of State Judge AwesomePlays from the bench on which he serves."
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-03 08:57 p.m.
no longer a judge
mantisshrimp69"There being no contestation of the complaint by the subject, the Court hereby orders the removal of State Judge AwesomePlays from the bench on which he serves."
Awesome 2025-12-03 10:01 p.m.
I was reinstated.
AwesomeI was reinstated.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-03 10:16 p.m.
Constitutionally suspect at best
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-03 10:16 p.m.
You were removed
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-03 10:16 p.m.
You’d need to be renominated and reconfirmed
mantisshrimp69Constitutionally suspect at best
Awesome 2025-12-04 12:12 a.m.
I disagree because of the unique circumstances; that aside, I’ll issue a summons later today.(edited)
AwesomeI disagree because of the unique circumstances; that aside, I’ll issue a summons later today.(edited)
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 08:36 a.m.
This isn’t a disciplinary case with IA
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 08:36 a.m.
You are a judge
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 08:37 a.m.
That means if you’re removed you need to renominated and reconfirmed
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 08:37 a.m.
You can’t just get hired back
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 08:37 a.m.
Doesn’t matter what circumstances there are
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 09:12 a.m.@Kezzera @krm this man is no longer a judge I request a new judge to preside over this action
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ 2025-12-04 09:13 a.m.
STOP FUCKING TAGGING ME IN CASES
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 09:13 a.m.
Somebody who was actually nominated and confirmed by the senate in between their removals from the bench, if any, like required by our constitution
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ 2025-12-04 09:13 a.m.
I am NOT a judge of this court
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ 2025-12-04 09:13 a.m.
Nor do I have any supervisory capacity
shah_khaled ᴘᴄI am NOT a judge of this court
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 09:13 a.m.
You are a justice that’s the point
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ 2025-12-04 09:13 a.m.
Nor clerical powers
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ 2025-12-04 09:13 a.m.
So stop tagging me
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 09:13 a.m.
With how often cabot talks in other judges’ cases here I’d think you could do that
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 09:14 a.m.
But ok I’ll wait for kezzera then
mantisshrimp69Awesome 2025-12-04 12:21 p.m.
I’ll discuss the matter with the Chief Judge, but I doubt it’s going to be reassigned.(edited)
AwesomeI’ll discuss the matter with the Chief Judge, but I doubt it’s going to be reassigned.(edited)
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:48 p.m.
Respectfully your honor I don’t exactly have time for a lovely discussion over a cup of tea between two people as to whether I can proceed with my case
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:49 p.m.
If you’re curious about whether you are still a judge, you can discuss it with whomever you want, but in the meantime recuse and let me proceed my case
mantisshrimp69If you’re curious about whether you are still a judge, you can discuss it with whomever you want, but in the meantime recuse and let me proceed my case
Awesome 2025-12-04 12:51 p.m.
No circumstances, taken together or separately, warrant recusal, so… no.(edited)
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:54 p.m.
Really?
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:54 p.m.
The fact you’re not a judge doesn’t warrant disqualification?
mantisshrimp69The fact you’re not a judge doesn’t warrant disqualification?
Awesome 2025-12-04 12:55 p.m.
I disagree; anyway, whatever the case, I’ve passed your objection(s) onto the Chief Justice.
Awesome 2025-12-04 12:55 p.m.
If he disagrees with your theory, we’ll proceed notwithstanding.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:56 p.m.
OK I will be submitting a motion for disqualification soon as you won’t disqualify yourself on your own accord
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:56 p.m.
The chief justice has nothing to do with this case
mantisshrimp69OK I will be submitting a motion for disqualification soon as you won’t disqualify yourself on your own accord
Awesome 2025-12-04 12:56 p.m.
And I will deny it (assuming the grounds are the same).(edited)
AwesomeAnd I will deny it (assuming the grounds are the same).(edited)
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:56 p.m.
Without reading it?
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:56 p.m.
That’s certainly not very judge like
Awesome 2025-12-04 12:57 p.m.
Well, the grounds you’ve given so far do not give rise to disqualification. Assuming you simply regurgitate those grounds in a written motion, it will be denied.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:57 p.m.
The fact you’re not a judge does give rise to disqualification
Awesome 2025-12-04 12:57 p.m.
I’ve already passed the matter onto the Chief Justice & Chief Judge.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:57 p.m.
Chief justice is not presiding over this case
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:57 p.m.
Neither is the chief judge
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:57 p.m.
You are
mantisshrimp69You are
Awesome 2025-12-04 12:58 p.m.
Ok, well, I’m not sure what you want me to do beyond recusing (solely) on a dubious, suspect theory.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:59 p.m.
What’s dubious about the fact that you can’t be a judge if you’re not nominated and confirmed
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:59 p.m.
Have you read the constitution
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 12:59 p.m.
“Reinstatement” is nowhere on there
mantisshrimp69“Reinstatement” is nowhere on there
Awesome 2025-12-04 01:01 p.m.
I mean, it’s simply out of my hands.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 01:02 p.m.
It won’t be once I submit my motion
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 01:02 p.m.
You can’t rule yourself an unlawful usurper so another judge will (I assume)
Awesome 2025-12-04 01:02 p.m.
I’d just wait for the Chief Judge / Chief Justice at this point.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 01:03 p.m.
Chief judge is not presiding over this case and neither is the chief justice
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 01:03 p.m.
Third time saying this
mantisshrimp69You can’t rule yourself an unlawful usurper so another judge will (I assume)
Awesome 2025-12-04 01:06 p.m.
I mean, it’s not their decision either, since the Supreme Court is the one that opted to reinstate, hence… why I’m raising your objections with the Chief Justice.(edited)
AwesomeI mean, it’s not their decision either, since the Supreme Court is the one that opted to reinstate, hence… why I’m raising your objections with the Chief Justice.(edited)
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 01:06 p.m.
Yes the supreme court did this in a landmark decision which is reflected…….absolutely nowhere
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 01:07 p.m.
Good point
Awesome 2025-12-04 01:07 p.m.
Look, again, let’s just wait for the Chief Judge / Chief Justice.(edited)
Awesome 2025-12-04 01:08 p.m.
I’m sure they’ll respond shortly.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 01:09 p.m.
Ok I’ll wait for the chief judge to respond if you want for my paternal uncle Rob to respond
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 01:10 p.m.
The pattern is that what Rob says literally doesn’t matter to anybody, nor what the chief judge says
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 01:10 p.m.
Because he is not presiding
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 01:57 p.m.@Awesome
mantisshrimp69Awesome 2025-12-04 02:11 p.m.
Ok, CA “facilitated” my return; thus, the matter is non-justiciable.
AwesomeOk, CA “facilitated” my return; thus, the matter is non-justiciable.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 02:20 p.m.
can you ask the CA rep in question to express this publicly somewhere instead of just in your dms
mantisshrimp69can you ask the CA rep in question to express this publicly somewhere instead of just in your dms
Awesome 2025-12-04 02:23 p.m.
I’m just going off what the Chief Justice said.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 02:24 p.m.@Awesome can you summon the respondent (the state)
mantisshrimp69Awesome 2025-12-04 02:27 p.m.
I’ll do so shortly (it’s currently 5 am and I woke up like an hour or two ago).
AwesomeI’ll do so shortly (it’s currently 5 am and I woke up like an hour or two ago).
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 02:28 p.m.
it's a command
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 02:28 p.m.
just do /summon
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 02:28 p.m.
</summon:1349558539206791172>
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 02:30 p.m.
summon actxrz solicitor general
Awesome used /summon
clerkFlow Bot2025-12-04 02:32 p.m.:white_check_mark: Successfully summoned @actxrz (edited)
Awesome used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-12-04 02:32 p.m. @Awesome has added @actxrz to the case channel.
Case Modified
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 02:32 p.m.
ty
Awesome 2025-12-04 02:32 p.m.@actxrz Let me know whether the State contests (preferably soon).
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 02:32 p.m.
im not sure but I think they get 5 days for habeas cases
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 02:33 p.m.
nvm
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-04 02:33 p.m.
standard 7
mantisshrimp69im not sure but I think they get 5 days for habeas cases
Awesome 2025-12-04 02:35 p.m.
Well, 7, but I put “preferably ” for a reason.
Awesome 2025-12-04 02:45 p.m.
Obviously, the State is entitled to take the time it is allotted; I’d simply prefer to resolve this (and the other habeas matter) sooner rather than later.
actxrz 2025-12-05 07:00 a.m.@Mlexus
judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-05 07:00 a.m.Requester: @Mlexus
Party:govt
Channel:in-re-swiftyderpz
A Magistrate Judge or higher may approve or deny below. 
Request ID: 2188853db74542329d48da531d166045 Approve Deny
(edited)
Appearance Request
Party:
Channel:
A Magistrate Judge or higher may approve or deny below.
Status
judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-05 08:53 a.m.@Mlexus appears for govt (approved by @Awesome ).
judicialFLOW pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:11 p.m.
Mlexus 2025-12-05 06:21 p.m.
State Contests @Awesome @mantisshrimp69
MlexusState Contests @Awesome @mantisshrimp69
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-05 06:25 p.m.
cool
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-05 06:25 p.m.
wheres ur response to the petition
Mlexus 2025-12-05 06:29 p.m.
Being written....? his Honour asked the Solicitor General ( whom I am taking over from ) if State contests
Mlexus 2025-12-07 06:45 p.m.@mantisshrimp69 @Awesome can we get the evidence
Mlexus 2025-12-07 06:45 p.m.
given its a habeas petition
Mlexus 2025-12-07 06:45 p.m.
Mlexusmantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 06:46 p.m.
1. that case never once mentions any requirement of evidence being attached to the petition, the very first pleading in the case
2. you haven't even filed a response to the petition so no you cannot get evidence
2. you haven't even filed a response to the petition so no you cannot get evidence
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 06:47 p.m.
I will not provide evidence unless you require me to your honor
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 06:47 p.m.
but I warn against that since that's not how habeas works at all and I don't know why potato is misleading the court like this by citing a case that literally does not say what he says it does
Mlexus 2025-12-07 06:47 p.m.
Oh stop talking so much
Mlexus 2025-12-07 06:48 p.m.
Yes it's not required but his Honour has preferred it before, I'll just wait.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 06:48 p.m.
ok good for you
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 06:48 p.m.
we're not required to provide any evidence
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 06:49 p.m.
so if you think the judge "prefers" to get it, then you should dm me privately and ask for it, not demand in the case chat
Mlexus 2025-12-07 06:49 p.m.
Want me to send a letter with an eagle
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 06:50 p.m.
I want you to not demand things and deliberately cite cases to mislead when that's not what's appropriate
Mlexus 2025-12-07 06:50 p.m.
thats a pretty big accusation boss
Mlexus 2025-12-07 06:50 p.m.
can you show where i've misled the court
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 06:51 p.m. 
Mlexus 2025-12-07 06:51 p.m.
Ya im showing the judge what he did in the other case I have with him
Mlexus 2025-12-07 06:51 p.m.
exact same scenario and i pinged you because you're counsel
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 06:51 p.m.
you're demanding things you're not entitled to and citing cases to deliberately mislead
Mlexus 2025-12-07 06:52 p.m.
Ok motion for sanctions against me and file a report with the bar
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 06:52 p.m.
no I won't do that
Awesome 2025-12-07 06:56 p.m.
Ok, both of you, stop. @mantisshrimp69 , can you attach the evidence here?
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 06:57 p.m.
on second thought
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 06:57 p.m.
yes
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 06:57 p.m. 
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 06:57 p.m.Watch False Charge. by Fathomrot and millions of other Roblox videos on Medal. #roblox, #clarkcounty 
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-07 07:10 p.m.@Awesome
mantisshrimp69Awesome 2025-12-07 08:16 p.m.
I saw. Ty.
Mlexus 2025-12-08 03:59 a.m.
Lol is this guy actually petitioning for habeas because he got booked for grand theft when he stole a r21 off the floor
Mlexus 2025-12-08 03:59 a.m.
This is literally npz_v if he was a tourist
Mlexus 2025-12-08 03:59 a.m.
Ok response to petition nearly finished
Mlexus 2025-12-08 04:16 a.m.RESPONSE TO THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
@Awesome
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HUAFLqKbjk8a006AUWsoTE3Z0RDy2Dnb/view?usp=sharing
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-08 07:17 a.m.@Awesome The state is claiming that Armory does not apply because this chattel was evidence.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-08 07:18 a.m.
In such a case, Armory does not apply; the test for evidence theft does. And that test requires by statute that my client be warned not to pick the firearm up before doing so. If, instead of being warned and doing it anyway, he just does it without warning, it’s not a crime.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-08 07:23 a.m.
If the chattel was evidence; he needed to be given a warning. Grand/petty theft does not apply to evidence and the state code is very clear about this. Evidence theft, or evidence theft relating to firearms, expressly requires a warning and the state cannot bypass this requirement by calling it grand theft instead of what it is.
If the chattel was not evidence: Armory v Delmirie applied. Though there is no “good faith” requirement of a possessory finder (I literally do not know where the state pulled this from, all you need is a finder and additional conditions if the owner should reasonably located, which is not the case because a reasonable person would not try to locate someone they know to be dead to return property) my clientwas acting in good faith. He wanted to keep this firearm that he found. It was not reasonable for him to attempt to locate someone who is dead to return the firearm, so he didn’t. Therefore, the chattel is his under Armory.
If the chattel was not evidence: Armory v Delmirie applied. Though there is no “good faith” requirement of a possessory finder (I literally do not know where the state pulled this from, all you need is a finder and additional conditions if the owner should reasonably located, which is not the case because a reasonable person would not try to locate someone they know to be dead to return property) my client
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-08 09:22 a.m.
Very simple honestly, but I don’t get why the state is trying to make of the law what they want it to be instead of taking it at face value by its explicit language
MlexusAwesome 2025-12-10 01:06 p.m.
Alright, I’ll review both of your arguments shortly.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-11 06:44 p.m.@Awesome don't forget
mantisshrimp69Awesome 2025-12-11 08:36 p.m.
Shortly = this week (incl the weekend; I’ve got a MTD to rule on, too).
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-11 08:36 p.m.
oh ok
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-14 02:27 p.m.@Awesome
mantisshrimp69Awesome 2025-12-14 06:55 p.m.
I forgot to post this here, but:
Alright, that’s a job for tmr me; I just got home and I’m incredibly tired.
Awesome 2025-12-14 06:55 p.m.
so the upd is today or tmr
Awesome 2025-12-14 06:57 p.m.
I’ve had family members over / been seeing them for the past few days (intermittently) so it’s a little bit more complex than I anticipated.(edited)
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-14 07:41 p.m.
Ok
Mlexus 2025-12-14 11:35 p.m.
I no longer represent the state @Awesome @mantisshrimp69
Awesome used /remove
clerkFlow Bot2025-12-14 11:35 p.m. @Awesome has removed @Mlexus from the case channel.
Case Modified
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:02 p.m.@Awesome
mantisshrimp69Awesome 2025-12-16 03:12 p.m.
Thanks for your patience. I forgot to post this yesterday, but I’ve reviewed both arguments (and the evidence itself). I’m not convinced, per se, that abandonment applies here — as that requires (1) intentional and (2) permanent relinquishment of property.
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:21 p.m.Armory v. Delamirie is the better argument, but it doesn’t apply here, either. It is undisputed that the state had dominion/control over the scene (where the chattels were located) and, so, likely had constructive possession of the chattel/s at issue.
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:23 p.m.
And, as an individual who has “constructive possession” has the same position as someone with actual possession, the “finder” has the weaker claim, and was required to return it to those with a superior claim.
Awesomemantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:25 p.m.
I’m not sure I understand your honor
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:25 p.m.
Even if the state has possession of it, it has possession of it as evidence and the legislature was very clear that the only crime that would apply in that case would be evidence theft
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:26 p.m.
And evidence theft requires an explicit warning
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:26 p.m.
No, it wouldn’t be.
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:26 p.m.
1201 requires that the evidence be used in a court proceeding; as that is clearly not the case here, it doesn’t apply.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:26 p.m.
Is § 1201 evidence theft
mantisshrimp69Is § 1201 evidence theft
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:27 p.m.
Oh, they added a new statute: 3109.
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:27 p.m.
My apologies.
AwesomeOh, they added a new statute: 3109.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:27 p.m.
Yes that is what we are talking about
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:27 p.m.
And if I may
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:28 p.m.
I think the dichotomy is pretty clear
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:28 p.m.
If it is evidence, and the state wants to preserve it, then a warning must be given
mantisshrimp69Yes that is what we are talking about
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:28 p.m.
I thought you were referring to 1201, not 3109.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:28 p.m.
Understandable misunderstanding your honor, I should’ve been clearer
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:29 p.m.
The point is that no warning was given so evidence theft does not apply, and the state can’t just get around this requirement by applying a completely different crime
mantisshrimp69The point is that no warning was given so evidence theft does not apply, and the state can’t just get around this requirement by applying a completely different crime
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:30 p.m.
But if the two statutes (1201 and 3109) apply, isn’t it quintessential prosecutorial (or, in this case, officer) discretion to decide which to pursue?
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:31 p.m.
Why should I read into 1201 something that isn’t there?(edited)
AwesomeBut if the two statutes (1201 and 3109) apply, isn’t it quintessential prosecutorial (or, in this case, officer) discretion to decide which to pursue?
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:31 p.m.
My view is this
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:31 p.m.
Grand theft is for theft of regular chattels belonging to people
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:31 p.m.
Evidence theft is for theft of evidence in the possession of the state
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:31 p.m.
Clearly, evidence theft applies, and not grand theft
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:32 p.m.
That’s my statutory interpretation and I think it’s the only one that is not absurd
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:32 p.m.
But this couldn’t have been evidence theft because evidence theft requires the officers actually warn you before stealing evidence
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:32 p.m.
And rightly so, since citizens can’t be expected to just guess what is evidence in the eyes of the state and what is not, if it’s on the ground on the street
mantisshrimp69Grand theft is for theft of regular chattels belonging to people
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:34 p.m.
I’m not sure I agree. Grand Theft requires (1) a person; (2) to “steal[] another’s property”; and (3) relevantly, which is either (a) worth over $200 or (b) a firearm.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:35 p.m.
I think the meaning of it not being evidence is implied since the evidence theft statute is right next to it
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:35 p.m.
If constructive possession applies, which I’m not sure you’ve disputed (and, if you have, if that’s tenable), the chattel/s at issue are (legally) the property of LE.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:37 p.m.
It’s the possession of LE insofar as it’s evidence of a crime
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:37 p.m.
It’s a more special possession than a regular citizen owning something
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:37 p.m.
So a special crime applies and the regular doesnt
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:40 p.m.
Also your honor may I note that this interpretation was implicitly already adopted by this court
mantisshrimp69It’s the possession of LE insofar as it’s evidence of a crime
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:40 p.m.
Ok, setting constructive possession aside, there is a storied history of officers charging suspects who “steal” property at a crime scene with 1201, which the Legislature was presumably aware of.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:40 p.m.
In npz v herecomesthefbi
AwesomeOk, setting constructive possession aside, there is a storied history of officers charging suspects who “steal” property at a crime scene with 1201, which the Legislature was presu...
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:40 p.m.
I doubt that they were
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:40 p.m.
I mean, it goes back to OG.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:41 p.m.
Shouldn’t this court uphold its previous rulings
mantisshrimp69Shouldn’t this court uphold its previous rulings
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:42 p.m.
I’ll review that case. One moment.
AwesomeI’ll review that case. One moment.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:42 p.m.
There isn’t a lot of commentary
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:43 p.m.
The petition was just granted
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:43 p.m.
But my briefing on it was virtually exactly the same
mantisshrimp69But my briefing on it was virtually exactly the same
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:45 p.m.
Ok, I’m not going to apply that decision as a decision on the merits was never reached (as the state defaulted).
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:46 p.m.
I’m also not bound by it and its persuasive value diminishes (if not disappears) in light of that fact.
AwesomeOk, I’m not going to apply that decision as a decision on the merits was never reached (as the state defaulted).
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:46 p.m.
Actually it was
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:46 p.m.
Pursuant to rule 37 even if the state defaults a plaintiff must still show evidence that is convincing to the court
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:46 p.m.
So the court does evaluate the merits, and that's what the court decided
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:47 p.m.
But I think it goes beyond that, the statutory construction is just pretty clear in my opinion. The fact is that officers in this genre are not very familiar with the law and so apply crimes wrongly most of the time—we must look not to their actions but to the legislative intent, which almost always differs
mantisshrimp69Pursuant to rule 37 even if the state defaults a plaintiff must still show evidence that is convincing to the court
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:48 p.m.
I mean, I’m not going to lie, I don’t think the Magistrate was aware of r 37. Normally, r 37 means some factual/legal analysis must be done.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:48 p.m.
The fact that these instances of police misunderstandings of the law aren't disputed in courts is owed largely to the fact that there are very little lawyers in our genre, not to anything else realistically
AwesomeI mean, I’m not going to lie, I don’t think the Magistrate was aware of r 37. Normally, r 37 means some factual/legal analysis must be done.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:48 p.m.
I'm pretty sure the judge was bommes right
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:48 p.m.
he's a district judge
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:49 p.m.
But he was aware, he reviewed the petition and agreed at the time and then I explained in my motion for default why we were right (the factual/legal analysis)
mantisshrimp69I'm pretty sure the judge was bommes right
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:49 p.m.
Ah, he was a District Judge at the time. My apologies; he was at one point a Magistrate (iirc).
mantisshrimp69But he was aware, he reviewed the petition and agreed at the time and then I explained in my motion for default why we were right (the factual/legal analysis)
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:50 p.m.
But, for a ruling to have persuasive value, a judge must perform his/her own factual/legal analysis.
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:50 p.m.
At least, that is what I follow when deciding whether to accord a ruling persuasive value.
AwesomeBut, for a ruling to have persuasive value, a judge must perform his/her own factual/legal analysis.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:51 p.m.
Well yes
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:51 p.m.
That's what I mean
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:51 p.m.
I explained the merits both legal and factual of the petition in the motion for default pursuant to rule 37(f)
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:51 p.m.
judge bommes granted that motion
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:51 p.m.
so there was an analysis of the facts and law
Awesome 2025-12-16 03:53 p.m.
I mean, I disagree (insofar as whether that ruling has persuasive value), but I’ll publish a full ruling (w/ caselaw) later tomorrow or the day after.(edited)
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-16 03:55 p.m.
Ok your honor
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 04:02 p.m.@Awesome your honor
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 04:02 p.m.
I think the court should reconsider making the evidence theft statute useless
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 04:03 p.m.
Interpreting it together with the grand/petty regular theft statutes as not mutually exclusive would just render an absurd result for both
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 04:03 p.m.
In my eyes they have to be mutually exclusive and anything else wouldn’t actually make sense
mantisshrimp69In my eyes they have to be mutually exclusive and anything else wouldn’t actually make sense
Awesome 2025-12-17 04:10 p.m.
Look, I get your argument, but I’m required to read the two provisions harmoniously, and I cannot read into a statute something which simply isn’t there. If the Senate wanted the two statutes to be mutually exclusive (and as courts detest implied repeals), they should have said so.
AwesomeLook, I get your argument, but I’m required to read the two provisions harmoniously, and I cannot read into a statute something which simply isn’t there. If the Senate wanted the t...
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 04:11 p.m.
I think you look at this wrong
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 04:11 p.m.
You say making them mutually exclusive would effectively repeal the grand theft statute partially(edited)
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 04:11 p.m.
But NOT making them mutually exclusive
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 04:12 p.m.
Would just COMPLETELY repeal the evidence theft statute
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 04:12 p.m.
It would literally never be used because it’s the same as this other one that doesn’t have a warning requirement
mantisshrimp69Would just COMPLETELY repeal the evidence theft statute
Awesome 2025-12-17 04:12 p.m.
No, it wouldn’t; as the two provisions can be read harmoniously, I am required to adopt that reading.(edited)
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 04:13 p.m.
Reading both of them harmoniously would mean they’re mutually exclusive and allowed to govern each their own area
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 04:13 p.m.
Evidence theft for evidence, normal theft for normal chattels
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 04:13 p.m.
If normal theft bleeds into evidence theft then the area of evidence theft doesn’t exist anymore and it can’t be used
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 04:14 p.m.
Whereas a mutually exclusive interpretation would mean each can function independently in their own right
mantisshrimp69Reading both of them harmoniously would mean they’re mutually exclusive and allowed to govern each their own area
Awesome 2025-12-17 04:15 p.m.
No. 3109 didn’t touch 3104; both continue to exist in their own right. Again, courts detest implied (partial or wholesale) repeals.
As it is, 3109 has an enhanced penalty compared to 3104: an additional five (5) minutes in jail.
As it is, 3109 has an enhanced penalty compared to 3104: an additional five (5) minutes in jail.
Awesome 2025-12-17 04:17 p.m.
If the Senate wanted 3109 to be mutually exclusive with 3104, why didn’t they specify the two statutes were mutually exclusive? They were — and are — certainly capable of doing so. Frankly, your argument is better suited to being made to the Senate.(edited)
AwesomeNo. 3109 didn’t touch 3104; both continue to exist in their own right. Again, courts detest implied (partial or wholesale) repeals. As it is, 3109 has an enhanced penalty compared...
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 04:27 p.m.
A difference of 5 minutes is hardly a difference at all
mantisshrimp69A difference of 5 minutes is hardly a difference at all
Awesome 2025-12-17 04:58 p.m.
You do know that’s the arrest time difference between First Degree Murder and Second Degree Murder, …right?
Awesome 2025-12-17 04:59 p.m.
FDM = 45; SDM = 40.
Awesome 2025-12-17 05:00 p.m.
Or Involuntary Manslaughter and Voluntary Manslaughter.
Awesome 2025-12-17 05:00 p.m.
IM = 20; VM = 25.
AwesomeYou do know that’s the arrest time difference between First Degree Murder and Second Degree Murder, …right?
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 05:13 p.m.
But FDM and SDM are mutually exclusive
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 05:13 p.m.
So it makes sense
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 05:13 p.m.
Same for IM and VM
mantisshrimp69But FDM and SDM are mutually exclusive
Awesome 2025-12-17 05:18 p.m.
But FDM can be charged as SDM, too (in lieu thereof).(edited)
Awesome 2025-12-17 05:19 p.m.
Ie, prosecutors can — and do — charge what might otherwise be FDM as SDM.
Awesome 2025-12-17 05:21 p.m.
Anyway, the point of those two examples was to show that the Senate considers a 5 minute time-difference as significant (or, at least, not insignificant).
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 05:21 p.m.
Okyes
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 05:21 p.m.
I get it
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 05:21 p.m.
I get what you mean actuall
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 05:22 p.m.
That makes sense, I still think that grand theft shouldn't bleed into evidence theft at all in the first place, but other than that (since you disagree with that already) it makes sense
mantisshrimp69That makes sense, I still think that grand theft shouldn't bleed into evidence theft at all in the first place, but other than that (since you disagree with that already) it makes ...
Awesome 2025-12-17 05:23 p.m.
I’d agree if the Senate made the two mutually exclusive, but they chose to leave 3104 untouched.
Awesome 2025-12-17 05:23 p.m.
It’s hard to regard that as anything other than a conscious decision.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 05:25 p.m.
But I don't think it being evidence is an additional "degree" to theft that can be charged under normal theft if a prosecutor decides it
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 05:25 p.m.
I think the fact that it's evidence requires a warning
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-17 05:26 p.m.
Because the senate noticed the volatility of how law enforcement guard what they consider "evidence", they just stand around it "guarding" it so it shouldn't be a crime for people who otherwise wouldn't know better to pick it up unless they're actually warned
mantisshrimp69I think the fact that it's evidence requires a warning
Awesome 2025-12-17 05:27 p.m.
It can’t be charged as 3109, absolutely, but I don’t see a valid argument in which that precludes an officer — or, indeed, a prosecutor — from using his or her discretion to charge 3104 (Grand Theft) or 3105 (Petty Theft), provided the elements for each are met.
Awesome 2025-12-17 05:28 p.m.
I have to construe the provisions harmoniously; ie, I need to read the two to exist in tandem, unless doing so is clearly — and unequivocally — not the intent of the Legislature.(edited)
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:43 p.m.@Awesome hi im leaving clark immediate effectively
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:43 p.m.
theres nothing to do here i think so like
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:44 p.m.
just so u know
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:44 p.m.
that i withdraw
mantisshrimp69that i withdraw
Awesome 2025-12-18 10:49 p.m.
... Uh, okay. Do I finish with the ruling re this or no?
Awesome... Uh, okay. Do I finish with the ruling re this or no?
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:49 p.m.
yes please
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:49 p.m.
my client is like
Awesome 2025-12-18 10:49 p.m.
Ok.
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:49 p.m.
still pursuing this
mantisshrimp69 2025-12-18 10:49 p.m.
just not with me
Awesome 2025-12-18 10:50 p.m.
Yea, sure. I wasn’t sure if you were both dropping this or not.
Awesome used /remove
clerkFlow Bot2025-12-18 10:50 p.m. @Awesome has removed @mantisshrimp69 from the case channel.
Case Modified
Awesome 2025-12-18 10:50 p.m.@mantisshrimp69 withdraws as Counsel of Record for Petitioner.
shah_khaled ᴘᴄ used /transcript
clerkFlow Bot2026-01-18 11:12 a.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow Bot2026-01-18 11:12 a.m.
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1329678726383927409/1462479784066945187 Successfully created transcript.
clerkFlow Bot2026-01-18 11:12 a.m. Permissions have been synced to
Channel Permissions Synced
Volume XVExported 263 messages